31:
238:
right of appeal from a refusal to extend time. If the
Oireachtas had intended that, it should have said so. Until the extension is granted there is no application for leave in existence. But even if as a matter of grammar and syntax, such an argument could be made, there is certainly not a clear and unambiguous ouster of the right of appeal which is required under the constitutional jurisprudence …
199:
The appellant appealed against, and sought an order setting aside, the High Court judgment and order dismissing the proceedings as "frivolous, and/or vexatious, and/or doomed to fail, and/or an abuse of the process". The respondents sought to have the appeal struck out on the basis that the appellant
191:
The High Court agreed with the respondents. The High Court agreed with the
Refugee Applications Commissioner's reasoning for denying asylum and found that there was no need for judicial review in this instance and that a motion of appeal against the Refugee Applications Commissioners report would be
187:
The
Minister for Justice and Equality, Refugee Applications Commissioner, Ireland and the Attorney General (the respondents) sought an order dismissing the proceedings of the appellant "on the grounds that they were frivolous, and/or vexatious, and/or doomed to fail, and/or an abuse of the process."
242:
Applying this reasoning to the present case, Denham CJ noted "he issues involved in a motion to dismiss may be substantially different from those involved in an application for leave to apply for judicial review". She went on to note that the wording of s5(3)(a) Illegal
Immigrants (Trafficking) Act
237:
Under the express terms of the Act the restrictions on the right of appeal to the
Supreme Court apply to the application for leave or the application for judicial review and as a matter of ordinary grammar and syntax, I find it difficult to see how it could be argued that there is an ouster of the
228:
The
Supreme Court granted an appeal without the need for a certificate. The appellant's application for leave to apply for judicial review had not been heard by the High Court. The High Court's decision was, rather, based on the respondent's motion to quash an application for judicial review. The
183:
of the
Refugee Applications Commissioner's decision to refuse the asylum application. As part of this application, the appellant sought a number of reliefs - "including an order quashing the decision of the Commissioner that the appellant failed to establish a well founded fear of persecution as
219:
The determination of the High Court of an application for leave to apply for judicial review as aforesaid or of an application for such judicial review shall be final and no appeal shall lie from the decision of the High Court to the
Supreme Court in either case except with the leave of the High
224:
The question for the court was, therefore, whether the order of the High Court dismissing the proceedings was a "determination of the High Court of an application for leave to apply for judicial review" in respect of which a certificate of leave to appeal was required.
220:
Court which leave shall only be granted where the High Court certifies that its decision involves a point of law of exceptional public importance and that it is desirable in the public interest that an appeal should be taken to the
Supreme Court.
160:
national, who came to
Ireland in 2005. The appellant applied for asylum in Ireland, which application was rejected by the Refugee Applications Commissioner in July 2011. The application for asylum was rejected on the basis
147:
case where the Supreme Court concluded that a certificate of leave to appeal was not required in order to appeal to the Supreme Court a decision of the High Court to dismiss proceedings as frivolous or vexatious.
354:
200:
had not obtained a certificate of leave to appeal from the High Court - this certificate was, according to the respondents, required under s5(3)(a) Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000.
229:
High Court's ruling was not, therefore, a 'determination' within the meaning of s5(3)(a) Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. The Court relied on the reasoning of Geoghegan J in
100:
The Supreme Court concluded that a certificate of leave to appeal was not required in order to appeal a decision of the High Court to dismiss proceedings as frivolous or vexatious.
156:
This case involved a child "A", suing by her mother and next friend (the appellant). The appellant was born in Ireland in 2010 and was the child of a
430:
168:(b) State protection would be available to the appellant against circumcision if her mother opposed it, according to country of origin information;
259:
435:
192:
more appropriate. As the High Court noted, "the generalised grounds, divorced from any specific flaws in a challenged decision, raise a
440:
140:
A (a Minor) v Minister for Justice and Equality, Refugee Applications Commissioner, Ireland and the Attorney General
425:
250:
The court concluded that the appellant could bring an appeal without the need for a certificate of the High Court.
171:(c) the threat from the family in the village could be avoided by returning to another location in Nigeria such as
420:
144:
46:
35:
377:
390:"B. -v- Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform [2002] IESC 5 (30 January 2002)"
196:
implication that the judicial review proceeding had been commenced as a delaying tactic only."
165:(a) The appellant was born and has never been to Nigeria and has never suffered persecution;
180:
122:
118:
30:
414:
328:
244:
130:
389:
209:
126:
172:
157:
329:"A. (a minor) -v- MJE & Ors [2013] IESC 18 (14 March 2013)"
215:
S5(3)(a) Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 provides that:
355:"Annual Policy Report on Migration and Asylum 2013: Ireland"
24:
A (a Minor) v Minister for Justice and Equality and others
184:
defined under s.2 of the Refugee Act, 1996, as amended."
284:
Brazil, Patricia (2013). "Asylum and Immigration Law".
231:
B. v Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform
112:
104:
94:
86:
81:
73:
65:
60:
52:
42:
23:
235:
217:
163:
212:, with whom Murray J and Clarke J concurred.
8:
353:Corona Joyce and Egle Gusciute (June 2015).
179:The appellant (through her mother) sought
29:
20:
378:Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000
271:
323:
321:
319:
208:The written judgment was provided by
7:
373:
371:
317:
315:
313:
311:
309:
307:
305:
303:
301:
299:
279:
277:
275:
260:A (a Minor) v Minister for Justice
14:
233:where Geoghegan J noted that:
143:IESC 18, (2013) 2 ILRM 457 is an
431:2013 in the Republic of Ireland
56:2013 IESC 18, (2013) 2 ILRM 457
436:Supreme Court of Ireland cases
1:
204:Holding of the Supreme Court
457:
286:Annual Review of Irish Law
117:
99:
28:
47:Supreme Court of Ireland
16:Irish Supreme Court case
36:Coat of arms of Ireland
240:
222:
177:
247:the right of appeal.
441:Immigration case law
145:Irish Supreme Court
108:Clarke J, Murray J
426:2013 in Irish law
136:
135:
448:
421:2013 in case law
405:
404:
402:
400:
386:
380:
375:
366:
365:
359:
350:
344:
343:
341:
339:
325:
294:
293:
281:
82:Court membership
33:
21:
456:
455:
451:
450:
449:
447:
446:
445:
411:
410:
409:
408:
398:
396:
388:
387:
383:
376:
369:
357:
352:
351:
347:
337:
335:
327:
326:
297:
283:
282:
273:
268:
256:
206:
181:judicial review
154:
123:judicial review
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
454:
452:
444:
443:
438:
433:
428:
423:
413:
412:
407:
406:
394:www.bailii.org
381:
367:
345:
333:www.bailii.org
295:
270:
269:
267:
264:
255:
254:External links
252:
205:
202:
153:
150:
134:
133:
115:
114:
110:
109:
106:
102:
101:
97:
96:
92:
91:
88:
87:Judges sitting
84:
83:
79:
78:
75:
71:
70:
67:
63:
62:
58:
57:
54:
50:
49:
44:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
453:
442:
439:
437:
434:
432:
429:
427:
424:
422:
419:
418:
416:
395:
391:
385:
382:
379:
374:
372:
368:
363:
356:
349:
346:
334:
330:
324:
322:
320:
318:
316:
314:
312:
310:
308:
306:
304:
302:
300:
296:
291:
287:
280:
278:
276:
272:
265:
263:
262:
261:
253:
251:
248:
246:
243:2000 did not
239:
234:
232:
226:
221:
216:
213:
211:
203:
201:
197:
195:
189:
185:
182:
176:
174:
169:
166:
162:
159:
151:
149:
146:
142:
141:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
111:
107:
103:
98:
95:Case opinions
93:
89:
85:
80:
77:Supreme Court
76:
72:
68:
66:Appealed from
64:
59:
55:
51:
48:
45:
41:
37:
32:
27:
22:
19:
397:. Retrieved
393:
384:
361:
348:
336:. Retrieved
332:
289:
285:
258:
257:
249:
241:
236:
230:
227:
223:
218:
214:
207:
198:
193:
190:
186:
178:
170:
167:
164:
155:
139:
138:
137:
61:Case history
18:
399:23 December
338:22 December
292:(1): 16–43.
194:prima facie
127:immigration
105:Concurrence
74:Appealed to
415:Categories
266:References
152:Background
69:High Court
362:Europa.eu
210:Denham CJ
173:Edo State
90:Denham CJ
158:Nigerian
113:Keywords
53:Citation
245:ouster
131:ouster
119:Asylum
358:(PDF)
161:that:
43:Court
401:2019
340:2019
417::
392:.
370:^
360:.
331:.
298:^
290:27
288:.
274:^
129:,
125:,
121:,
403:.
364:.
342:.
175:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
